Apologies in advance if I'm making a mistake here, but can someone
explain to me why the minimal attached example code fails to join with
its trivial spawned thread?
I might guess that it's because spawn_thread() in threads.c calls
scm_i_pthread_detach. So does launch_thread(). Yet the documenta
Here's another patch, which in retrospect may be the most useful of
the series. It adds a section called "PEG Internals" to the manual,
and begins documenting how PEG actually works. This should make
hacking PEG a lot easier.
Noah
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Noah Lavine wrote:
> Hello all,
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> Andreas Rottmann writes:
>
>> The expansion of `define-inlinable' contained an expression, which made
>> SRFI-9's `define-record-type' fail in non-toplevel contexts ("definition
>> used in expression context").
>
> SRFI-9 says “Record-type
Hi Alex,
Alex Shinn writes:
> 2011/3/7 Ludovic Courtès :
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>> Andreas Rottmann writes:
>>
>>> The expansion of `define-inlinable' contained an expression, which made
>>> SRFI-9's `define-record-type' fail in non-toplevel contexts ("definition
>>> used in expression context").
>>
Hi,
On Sun 06 Mar 2011 12:03, Neil Jerram writes:
> What architectural dependencies are there in the .go format?
Only endianness and word size.
Of course a macro could check something about the system at
expansion-time, for example a value in a header; and there are things
like the mapping of
Hi Neil,
Neil Jerram writes:
> In principle, how should Guile 2.0 be cross-compiled? I'm thinking
> mostly of the part of the build that compiles all the installed modules.
Guile 2.0 can only be cross-compiled when the endianness and word size
of the host and target match (because the bytecode
2011/3/7 Ludovic Courtès :
> Hi Andreas,
>
> Andreas Rottmann writes:
>
>> The expansion of `define-inlinable' contained an expression, which made
>> SRFI-9's `define-record-type' fail in non-toplevel contexts ("definition
>> used in expression context").
>
> SRFI-9 says “Record-type definitions m
On Sun 06 Mar 2011 17:24, Mark H Weaver writes:
> Andy Wingo writes:
>> SCM scm_c_public_lookup (const char *module_name, const char *name);
>> SCM scm_c_private_lookup (const char *module_name, const char *name);
>> SCM scm_c_public_ref (const char *module_name, const char *name);
>
Greetings,
While debugging[0] an issue with Bobot++ (poor sneek!) aborting after
calling scm_regexp_exec on any utf-8 strings I eventually realized
that... the string was actually single-byte encoded internally. After
taking that down the wrong path I eventually tested `regexp-exec' with a
*valid
Hi,
I’ve pushed a variant of this patch.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
Hi Andreas,
Andreas Rottmann writes:
> The expansion of `define-inlinable' contained an expression, which made
> SRFI-9's `define-record-type' fail in non-toplevel contexts ("definition
> used in expression context").
SRFI-9 says “Record-type definitions may only occur at top-level”, and
I’m in
Hi!
Andy Wingo writes:
> SCM scm_public_lookup (SCM module_name, SCM sym);
> SCM scm_private_lookup (SCM module_name, SCM sym);
>
> Look up a variable bound to SYM in the module named MODULE_NAME. If
> the module does not exist or the symbol is unbound, signal an
> error. T
Hello,
On Sun 06 Mar 2011 18:10, Thien-Thi Nguyen writes:
> () Mark H Weaver
> () Sun, 06 Mar 2011 11:24:33 -0500
>
>Maybe utf8 is a better choice?
>
> A module name is a list of symbols, so why not use that from the beginning?
The variants without _c_ did just that, so no problem there.
() Mark H Weaver
() Sun, 06 Mar 2011 11:24:33 -0500
Maybe utf8 is a better choice?
A module name is a list of symbols, so why not use that from the beginning?
If the process of converting "ice-9 common-list" into (ice-9 common-list)
must happen somewhere, it would be nice if it could happen e
As always, see the patch header for details.
From: Andreas Rottmann
Subject: Don't mix definitions and expressions in SRFI-9
The expansion of `define-inlinable' contained an expression, which made
SRFI-9's `define-record-type' fail in non-toplevel contexts ("definition
used in expression contex
Hi!
Here's a few patches related to R6RS port support, in short:
- Add missing `get-string-n!' and `get-string-n'
- Fix a few missing exports
- A bit of work on transcoder-related stuff
See the patch headers for details.
The patches are attached in the order they should be applied, although
"
Andy Wingo writes:
> SCM scm_c_public_lookup (const char *module_name, const char *name);
> SCM scm_c_private_lookup (const char *module_name, const char *name);
> SCM scm_c_public_ref (const char *module_name, const char *name);
> SCM scm_c_private_ref (const char *module_name, co
Hey all,
As we move more and more to writing code in Scheme and not in C, it
becomes apparent that it is more cumbersome to reference Scheme
values than it should be.
I propose that we add helper C APIs like these:
SCM scm_public_lookup (SCM module_name, SCM sym);
SCM scm_private_lookup
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Sat 05 Mar 2011 20:47, Neil Jerram writes:
>
>> In principle, how should Guile 2.0 be cross-compiled? I'm thinking
>> mostly of the part of the build that compiles all the installed
>> modules.
>
> I have never cross-compiled anything, so I really don't know.
>
> Ideally
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hi Neil,
>
> Neil Jerram writes:
>
>> I had a feeling that a lot (or even maybe all) of guile-lib got merged
>> into the main Guile distribution. So are you sure you still need
>> separate guile-lib at all?
>
> Only (sxml ...), (texinfo ...), and (statpro
20 matches
Mail list logo
